On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:31:59PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > From: Eric Biggers <[email protected]> > > If userspace provides an invalid fscrypt no-key filename which encodes a > hash value with any of the UBIFS node type bits set (i.e. the high 3 > bits), gracefully report ENOENT rather than triggering ubifs_assert(). > > Test case with kvm-xfstests shell: > > . fs/ubifs/config > . ~/xfstests/common/encrypt > dev=$(__blkdev_to_ubi_volume /dev/vdc) > ubiupdatevol $dev -t > mount $dev /mnt -t ubifs > mkdir /mnt/edir > xfs_io -c set_encpolicy /mnt/edir > rm /mnt/edir/_,,,,,DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > > With the bug, the following assertion fails on the 'rm' command: > > [ 19.066048] UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 379): ubifs_assert_failed: UBIFS > assert failed: !(hash & ~UBIFS_S_KEY_HASH_MASK), in fs/ubifs/key.h:170 > > Fixes: f4f61d2cc6d8 ("ubifs: Implement encrypted filenames") > Cc: <[email protected]> # v4.10+ > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
Richard, can you review the two UBIFS patches in this series, and if you're okay with them, provide Acked-by's so that we can take them through the fscrypt tree? They don't conflict with anything currently in the UBIFS tree. Thanks! - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
